Slashdot Mirror


Romanian Officials Say Russia Finances European Fracking Protests

HughPickens.com writes Andrew Higgins reports in the NYT that Romanian officials including the prime minister point to a mysteriously well-financed and well-organized campaign of protests over fracking in Europe and are pointing their fingers at Russia's Gazprom, a state-controlled energy giant, that has a clear interest in preventing countries dependent on Russian natural gas from developing their own alternative supplies of energy and preserving a lucrative market for itself — and a potent foreign policy tool for the Kremlin. "Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called nongovernmental organizations — environmental organizations working against shale gas — to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas," says NATO's former secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. A wave of protest against fracking began three years ago in Bulgaria, a country highly dependent on Russian energy. Faced with a sudden surge of street protests by activists, many of whom had previously shown little interest in environmental issues, the Bulgarian government in 2012 banned fracking and canceled a shale gas license issued earlier to Chevron. Russia itself has generally shown scant concern for environmental protection and has a long record of harassing and even jailing environmentalists who stage protests. On fracking, however, Russian authorities have turned enthusiastically green, with Putin declaring last year that fracking "poses a huge environmental problem." Places that have allowed it, he said, "no longer have water coming out of their taps but a blackish slime." For their part Green groups have been swift to attack Rasmussen's views, saying that they were not involved in any alleged Russian attempts to discredit the technology, and were instead opposed to it on the grounds of environmental sustainability. "The idea we're puppets of Putin is so preposterous that you have to wonder what they're smoking over at Nato HQ," says Greenpeace, which has a history of antagonism with the Russian government, which arrested several of its activists on a protest in the Arctic last year.

24 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. One should be careful on the logic here by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Keep in mind that just because Russia/Putin doesn't want fracking, it isn't a reason by itself to think tha fracking is a good thing.

    1. Re:One should be careful on the logic here by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, anything other than a return to a Noble Savage state will not please the radicals.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is that fracking is not a bad thing either.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So why is the proposed fix, a banning of fracking rather than enforcement of existing regulation?

    4. Re:One should be careful on the logic here by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Saudis are heavily involved in anti fracking propaganda in the US as well.

      Everyone paying attention knows what is going on. This more about money and less about the environment.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, the seismic activity might be a good thing.

      The link is basically that the fracking is weakening some structures that then drop below the strength needed to keep a quake from happening at current pressure. This causes a small quake. The alternative is to let the pressure build until it exceeds what the current structures down there can handle, this would cause a single large quake.

      I'm not pro-fracking (I think the ground water contamination is bad), plus the cheap gas slows movement away from fossil fuels, but the increase is small quakes shouldn't be thought of as bad IMO.

    6. Re:One should be careful on the logic here by Earthquake+Retrofit · · Score: 2

      ...But then, one has to understand that every position - no matter how altruistic your motivation - has a consequence. If your local group is protesting anything based on funding from Putin (or the Koch Brothers, or George Soros, etc) understand that as well-intentioned as your protests may be, you are being used as a convenient pawn.

      Put you faith in ideas, not persons. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.

      --
      Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
    7. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      If the problem is the regulations aren't being enforced then enforce the regulations instead of drafting even more regulations that won't be enforced either.

      "All playing nice"? "Fool you twice"? I get the sense you're ready to do something truly foolish. Why don't you try living without any petroleum based products for a while before you decide it's OK to cripple the oil industry? You might decide that the result is not to your liking and then you will still be able to recover easily. If you try it the other way you're going to be stuck in misery. Or is your goal to simply prove the validity of this Robert Heinlein quote?

      Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

      This is known as “bad luck.”

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    8. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by khallow · · Score: 2

      You seem to be confused by "existing" - obviously the existing regulations haven't worked.

      One could make the same claim of driving or speech. There are bad actors, hence, the activity isn't regulated well enough and should be banned as a result.

  2. Bullshit by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am european, and anti-fracking, and I have yet to receive my fat cheque from dear old Vlado.

    1. Re:Bullshit by SargentDU · · Score: 4, Informative

      He only has to convince the people you would follow in protests, not the minions like you or me.

  3. Thee not me by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Already seeing some quasi-defenses of this here. Guess the "get the money out of politics" folks actually mean "get YOUR money out of politics, ours is fine."

  4. it has a name... by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...in the US we call it "lobbying and advertising" and corporations of course spend billions trying to influence people to engage in behaviors that increase the profitability and public image of their business.

    so it's in Russia's interest to prevent fracking...ok well they spend money to sway public opinion...sounds like SOP to me.

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
  5. Just some bits of info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm Romanian, and there is some information missing from this "news". First of all, the Russian company Gazprom has been given a lot of exploration/exploitaition licences in Romania, including the rights for prospecting for shale gas. They operate through a Serbian subsidiary called Nis, and they have already started prospections in the Western area of the country. Therefore, I really doubt Russia finances the civic campaigns against fracking. Then, the Romanian officials quoted include a very controversial mayor of the village where Chevron first started to look for shale gas. That mayor happened to buy the field where the prospections were to be started just before Chevron came. He made a nice profit in the meanwhile, and the non-governmental organizations have acused him from the start of being - possibly - "persuaded" financially by Chevron itself. So these officials are far from being unbiased on the matter.

    The other thing the story fails to tell about is that the movement against dangerous mining operations (not only fracking) is very strong in Romania for several years now, we had massive demostrations, with tens of thousands of protesters gathering in major cities each time such a danger was percieved. And they are the same protesters that actively despise Russia and its influence in the region. Because, unlike Hungary, Serbia and other neighbours, Romania has managed to keep the political Russian influence away -- we've had enough of their bright ideas when they imposed communism on us, and we do not forget that easily.

    All in all, this looks like a manipulative story, possibly put forward by those who would have something to gain from fracking in a country where the population density/distribution makes this method dangerous if not criminal -- and this includes Russians. They won't succeed, of course, they keep underestimating our resolve/intelligence.

    1. Re:Just some bits of info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      [quote]unlike Hungary, Serbia and other neighbours, Romania has managed to keep the political Russian influence away[/quote]
      That's not quite correct. Bulgaria's majority is also against Russian influence (I know for I am one).

  6. Re:Maybe Putin could help by ChrisMaple · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Faults build up stress until they break. The longer the stress builds, the bigger the earthquake. If fracking promotes earthquakes, that means they'll be more frequent, less damaging, and less deadly. I'd rather experience a Richter 4 daily than a Richter 7 every 20 years.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  7. Re:This isn't new... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    When Nixon ended the draft, SDS, the murderous leftist student organization, floundered around for a new issue. They hit on environmentalism...

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  8. Re: "Turk Stream" by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You might want to reread what is happening. Russia had no choice but to sell to china at fraction of the price.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  9. Re:Unprecedented interference with free debate! by Gort65 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think they're trying to frack with you.

  10. Re:This isn't new... by Jiro · · Score: 2

    I believe the Ferguson rioters were left-wing. And they were certainly trying to use violence to terrorize people for political purposes. Of course, you could always be loose as to your definition of terrorism on the right and not so loose on the left. And Moscow didn't need to fund them, but they still count as left-wing terrorists by your overly loose definition.

    Furthermore, since you went back to 1995 for the Oklahoma City bombing, I can point out the rise of ecoterrorism, and the Discovery building shooter.

  11. Fracking, not what you think it is. by ajlowe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You do realize that fracking has been done commercially since 1949 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... ), right? What environmentalist are really concerned with is called horizontal completions, but that just doesn't have the insidious ring to it that "fracking" does. If we called it by it's real name, it would be much harder to scare those of us driven by emotion instead of reason.

    Let's not forget there are some benefits to horizontal completions. Thanks to horizontal completions petroleum products (gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, plastics and on and on and on) prices are plummeting. Thanks to horizontal completions, natural gas is now cheaper the coal in the US and coal power plants are being converted to natural gas which is all around cleaner, safer, and produces half the CO2 of coal. Thanks to horizontal completions, OPEC's 40 year cartel appears to be at an end, and horizontal completions dropping the price of oil has been the most effective "sanction" by far on Russia, putting more pressure on Putin and the ruble then all the heads of state combined.

  12. Re:This isn't new... by Trepidity · · Score: 2

    The SDS splintered years before Nixon ended the draft, so your chronology seems a bit off. The bulk of them went into anti-prison and anti-racism activism, as far as I can tell, not environmentalism.

  13. It is not just Russia, and not just "protests" by mi · · Score: 2

    The similarity of goals make for strange bed-fellows. Russia and Saudi Arabia may have little else in common, but they are both major exporters of fossil fuels. Not having the same sort of spy-network as Russia, Saudis finance propaganda movies. Russia would do that too, of course — and take care of translating such movies for audiences in Russia and its Russian-speaking neighbors.

    And when propaganda-campaigns fail to stop other countries from developing their own energy-sources, Russia will invade...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  14. Re:Not here in France... by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am an ecologist actively campaigning against the idiocy of fracking (especially in a karst landscape like ours). I can categorically state that no-one is financing us, let alone the Russians.

    You can "categorically state" it, but it may still be the truth. Matt Damon didn't know either...

    Russia does not advertise such help, of course. It helps your kind remain sincere and your words — plausible. USSR — through that fun and Earth-friendly agency named KGB — penetrated various churches and "peace" forums, financed terrorists and saboteurs, the works... Most of those did not, of course, realize, where the help they were getting originates...

    Today FBI warns us about Cuban intelligence targeting academics (they don't have to name Russia by name here):

    Another purpose of a foreign intelligence service is to spread the influence and ideology of its regime, or damage the claims and image of another regime.

    Of course, the fools used by such foreigners don't realize, they are exploited — few are bona-fide traitors...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.